The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal House of Denmark (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f24/)
-   -   General Questions and Information about the Danish Royal Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f24/general-questions-and-information-about-the-danish-royal-family-1262.html)

rigsgreve sponneck 06-15-2010 12:30 AM

The reason is (and assuming the following is correct as I have heard conflicting answers), that if a married countess does retain (?) the title after divorce by keeping the surname, can it be carried on by anyway if she remarries (other than the old via 'permission' route).

Does she retain the title when divorced if she keeps the family name?
Assuming the above is yes, is it lost forever if she remarries?

Just need the modern view/rule as to clear conflicting information.

Thank you...

nwinther 02-15-2011 08:22 AM

Media Coverage of the Danish Royal Family
 
I'm starting this thread by suggestion from a post in another one, where some of us voiced our opinions on the way the media covers the DRF.

The point of the thread is to discuss media coverage or level/tastefulness thereof, when the DRF engages in "main events" (marriage, christening etc.)

Personally, I find media coverage - especially omnibus TV-coverage - of the DRF to be nauseating at best. Often, the DRF or members thereof will feature at the end of a news broadcast, where they've opened a new hospital, museum, bridge or something. A short clip of some official business.
But when an event revolving around the DRF reaches just mildly celebratory stages (marriages, births, christenings etc.) these omnibus channels reaches "critical mass". Latest it was the presentation of the twins where TV blew everything out of proportion (so, I guess we'll go from there).

Anyway - this is just a beginning post. If you want to read my most recent rant (and the cause of this thread) go here.

Viv 02-15-2011 06:12 PM

Most DRF posters are aware that Billed Bladet is the Danish royalty magazine; the non-Danish readers have Muhlers excellent translations
(:flowers:) to refer to.

Billed Bladet is rather loyal to the royal family and would normally never publish anything scrutinizing or critical. As long as I can remember, BB has been a sober weekly with decent journalists. However there was a change of editor-in-chief some years ago! Since then much of the royalty coverage has been reduced to sentimental nonsense! Headlines like:
* Crown Princess Mary/Princess Marie/CP Frederik 'touched' or 'moved to tears' are legion! Whether they actually are 'touched' or not :smile:! Apparently our royals cannot open a tin of sardines without being 'moved to tears" or without exchanging 'loving glances' or without 'beaming with love'. I'm pleased they're happy, but is it it really necessary to describe them in this manner? I'm sure that most of us can relate to the royal family without this touchy-feely stuff!
Then there's the press conferences with HM and the Consort. I think it is common knowledge by now that HM is not a good small-talker, but she tries her best. However she cringes every time she's being asked family questions as if she were any mrs. Smith from down the road with two kids and 7 grandchildren! She was never a mother hen and nor is she a granny hen. I'm sure she's fond of her grand children, but she loathes being perceived as your average 'nan'! When will the media learn?

For the sake of competition BB has joined the down-market magazines in the occasional display of speculation. The piece on the Greek wedding in Spetses was written before it took place! The inclusion of CP Mette-Marit in the festivities caught BB on the wrong foot! (Mette-Marit did not attend!).

Enough for now; there's more to come!
Good night!
Viv

nwinther 02-16-2011 03:45 AM

The most recent was the way Ekstra Bladet covered the (non-)story of the youngest princess (the twin) having been admitted to - and then discharged from - hospital.

They went "Breaking" on that "story".

And to boot, EB is a republican "paper" who loathes everything the monarchy is and stand for, not to mention the members of the royal house (going out of their way to demean any of the members). Ironic that they'd "break" over anything to do with the moncarchy lest it be a death.

Vultures!

Viv 02-19-2011 03:59 AM

The Ekstra Bladet Saturday supplement features an interview with CP Frederik, mainly on his interest in sport! IMO not an unwise move of the royal court to invite EB to the Palace. Letting a republican tabloid interview a crown prince also offers an interesting take not only on the interviewee, but also on the interviewer! It is as if the interviewer is constantly analyzing the situation in order not to become too absorbed by it. I don't know what this journalistic method is called but it's like looking at an endless row of mirror images :smile:.

Viv

HRH of Sweden 09-14-2011 02:04 PM

Duke and Duchess?
 
Hi! I was just wondering if there ever was a duke or duchess (royal or non-royal) of a county in Denmark?

Thank you :)

Muhler 09-14-2011 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRH of Sweden (Post 1316288)
Hi! I was just wondering if there ever was a duke or duchess (royal or non-royal) of a county in Denmark?

Thank you :)

Yes and no.

The concept of duke has only existed in one area of the realm. Apart from that, the highest ranking aristrocrat had the title of count.

We go back 1.200 years. Back then the southern most provinces of Denmark, which were later to develope into Schleswig & Holstein, were the most vulnerable from invasions and attack from the south. as such permanent armies and permanently manned fortifications were placed in that border region.
As the Danish king was permanently travelling through a vast realm, it was necessary to have a person in charge in that region. That person was often a close relative of the king.
That military governor, because that was essentially what he was, was first given the title of Marsk = March, and towards the end of the Viking Age that title was changed to Jarl = Earl.
Now, the problem with having two rich provinces with a permanent standing army was that they eventually became more or less autonomous, depending on the political strenght of the kings. At the same time the provinces became more and more Germanized, partly due to German immigration and partly because they developed their own sense of nationality and culture, which over the centuries became more and more different from the Danes. And the two provinces had now developed into two lands, Schleswig & Holstein.
When the Middle Ages had ended the concept of having an autonomous military governor in an important part of the realm had become unacceptable and Denmark had now become strong enough to enforce the kings will on the two provinces. So a pragmatic solution was developed. The Danish king would automatically also be Hertug = Duke of Schleswig & Holstein and everyone was happy. The two duchies would be independent from the Kingdom of Denmark and the locals were not considered Danes.
That worked excellently for the next 400 years, until 1848, when Absolutism was abolished and Denmark was to become a democracy. The newly appointed politicians said: "Let's be practical and have a common Constitution for the entire realm, including Schleswig & Holstein. They do have a peculiar status, but de facto they had been a part of Denmark for 1.000 years (probably longer)".
"No way"! They yelled in the two provinces! "We are not Danes, we are not a part of Denmark and we want things to remain more or less like it has always been. We like the new Constitution, we just want one in German, which is basically identical but only applies to Schleswig & Holstein, no matter how impractical and silly it really is"!
Result: Rebellion, what is known as the First Schleswigan War. The rebels were defeated. but the bitterness remained the ancient bands to Denmark had been severed and that led to the Second Schleswigan War in 1864, where the two duchies became independent. Sort of, because by 1872 they found themselves being a part of a newly formed Germany.
To make it even more interesting the people in Schleswig & Holstein rebelled against the government of the Danish king, but they acknowledged and wanted to remain loyal to their duke, who happened to be the Danish king....

If you made it this far without eating a glass of aspirins, I hope this simplified account of the issue was helpful. :smile:

HRH of Sweden 09-15-2011 03:24 AM

Haha, no aspirin needed but thank you for your information! :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muhler (Post 1316385)
Yes and no.

The concept of duke has only existed in one area of the realm. Apart from that, the highest ranking aristrocrat had the title of count.

We go back 1.200 years. Back then the southern most provinces of Denmark, which were later to develope into Schleswig & Holstein, were the most vulnerable from invasions and attack from the south. as such permanent armies and permanently manned fortifications were placed in that border region.
As the Danish king was permanently travelling through a vast realm, it was necessary to have a person in charge in that region. That person was often a close relative of the king.
That military governor, because that was essentially what he was, was first given the title of Marsk = March, and towards the end of the Viking Age that title was changed to Jarl = Earl.
Now, the problem with having two rich provinces with a permanent standing army was that they eventually became more or less autonomous, depending on the political strenght of the kings. At the same time the provinces became more and more Germanized, partly due to German immigration and partly because they developed their own sense of nationality and culture, which over the centuries became more and more different from the Danes. And the two provinces had now developed into two lands, Schleswig & Holstein.
When the Middle Ages had ended the concept of having an autonomous military governor in an important part of the realm had become unacceptable and Denmark had now become strong enough to enforce the kings will on the two provinces. So a pragmatic solution was developed. The Danish king would automatically also be Hertug = Duke of Schleswig & Holstein and everyone was happy. The two duchies would be independent from the Kingdom of Denmark and the locals were not considered Danes.
That worked excellently for the next 400 years, until 1848, when Absolutism was abolished and Denmark was to become a democracy. The newly appointed politicians said: "Let's be practical and have a common Constitution for the entire realm, including Schleswig & Holstein. They do have a peculiar status, but de facto they had been a part of Denmark for 1.000 years (probably longer)".
"No way"! They yelled in the two provinces! "We are not Danes, we are not a part of Denmark and we want things to remain more or less like it has always been. We like the new Constitution, we just want one in German, which is basically identical but only applies to Schleswig & Holstein, no matter how impractical and silly it really is"!
Result: Rebellion, what is known as the First Schleswigan War. The rebels were defeated. but the bitterness remained the ancient bands to Denmark had been severed and that led to the Second Schleswigan War in 1864, where the two duchies became independent. Sort of, because by 1872 they found themselves being a part of a newly formed Germany.
To make it even more interesting the people in Schleswig & Holstein rebelled against the government of the Danish king, but they acknowledged and wanted to remain loyal to their duke, who happened to be the Danish king....

If you made it this far without eating a glass of aspirins, I hope this simplified account of the issue was helpful. :smile:


Muhler 11-08-2011 04:35 PM

Perhaps we should have a general DRF anecdote thread?

It's Christmas soon, so all sorts of biographies are being published, also one from Helle Stangerup, an author, who went to school with QMII and who has been friends with the DRF. She has until now maintained a strickt no talk policy.
She has now published an autobiography, where she mentions a few anecdotes about the DRF and these anecdotes are basically mentioned here in this article it appears: Dronningens veninde: Jeg faldt for prins Henrik først - Royale - BT.dk

Helle Stangerup was invited to a midsummer party ny Princess Margrethe's LiW, Wava Armfeldt. (*) Among the guests were, for unknown reasons, three foreign and unknown and unmarried gentlemen.
Stangerup checked them out:
- An English bankier, a bit dull, a handsome Swedish diplomat and an at least just as well turned out French diplomat.

To her it looked like an attempt from Wava Armfeldt to introduce Princess Margrethe to new faces, but there wasn't anything in the air as far as she could tell.

- The Englishman spend at lot of energy talking about finances and the gambling clubs in London (**) while both the Swede and Frenchman danced away on the dancefloor with everybody else but the guest of honor. "Actually I believe I was one of the favorites of the incredibly charming Frenchman, my French was by then still reasonable, perhaps that was the reason but afterwards it took a good deal of time to get him out of the head".
She sighs: "A few danced under the sparkling chandalier at Rosenfeldt (***) however never amounted to more, not even a postcard".

So when Ekstra Bladet wrote that Princess Margrethe had fallen in love with Count Henri de Laborde de Montezat, she didn't believe, until the engagement was announced by the court that same afternoon.

She determines dryly: "No wonder that postcard never came", and she concludes: "Private association with the DRF provides a wealth of experiences, but there is absolutely no inside knowledge going with that".

She recalls going to (high) school with the later QMII. Where the eir to the Throne was not afraid to stand up and say it when a pupil was treated unfairly, completely humilliation the principal in the process.
Both Princess Margrethe and Stangerup were bored stiff, during arithmetic and made paperclippings instead
Years later QMII said in a speech to Stangerup: "We felt very literate because we both had read Gone With the Wind".

She and QMII were taught Philosophy for a year at Fredensborg and the LiW, Wava pointed out to Stangerup: "Do not come one second late for a meal. Never put anything on the King's piano". There were two conversational tabus: Dogs and cardplay. (****)

Stangerup says about Frederik IX that he was an incredible warm person but also known for his violent temper.
There were usually servants around but sometimes the royals were able to improvise themselves out of a problem.

"At a minor occasion in the middle of a lancier, the zipper in the back of the Queen's (QMII) dress suddenly ripped open all the way down but no maid was summoned, nor was there a change of dress.
At Fredensborg there are darkblue tablecloths on the bridge tables and the Queen went straigt to the nearest, tore off the tablecloth, folded it into a triangular shawl and fastened the tips in front of her on the chest with her brooch. That covered the back and the dance could continue".

Alas, there were also problems and Stangerup had to choose when the DRF and Count Schack had a row.
Joachim was supposed to inherit Schackenborg Manor but the manor was in deep debt and pretty derelict too.
(Joachim and the DRF has used very considerable sums bringing that in order and Joachim is still working on renovating the manor. I believe the staircase is in bad shape).

You can read about the meeting between Count Henri and Princess Margrethe and how she fell helplessly in love here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post1132604

(*) Who was very close to QMII and believe she died not that long ago.

(**) Them kind of topics can swoon any woman. :lol:

(***) A manor.

(****) It's wellknown that Queen Ingrid was not fond of cats and dogs.

Muhler 12-30-2011 06:55 PM

Summary of a Q&A in Billed Bladet #52, 2011.

Where a Clara B. Jensen asks whether a king or crown prince of Denmrak can be homosexual.

In his reply Jon Bloch Skipper states that he can.
There is nothing in the Law of Succession to hinder a homoseksual from being king.
However there is a problem in regards to any heirs. The Law of Succession, §5 says clearly that only children born within a legal marriage (*) can be in the line of succession.
A registered partnership is one step short of a marriage and the big question is whether the Parliament will sanction a registered partnership between the king/crown prince and another mand and there is also the question about what title such a partner will get.
Jon Bloch Skipper does not enter the question as to whether adopted children of a gay royal couple can be in the line of succession. Presumably not, since the wording of the law is very specific.

(*) Legal marriage refers to secret marriages that were not acknowledged or a marriage to the left hand.
Centuries ago it happened that a king married a woman to his left hand. The marriage to the queen was for political and dynastic purposes, the marriage to the left hand was for love.
It was really very pragmatic. Such a woman would not only be the king's official mistress but for all purposes also his official companion in life, just below his wife. That meant that the woman and her family, had an official status and that she would be acknowleged officially by everyone and that she would be treated like an official companion of the king and not as a kind of non-person. It also gave her protection. When the king died she was expected to retreat to a manor somewhere in the country and live there quietly in comfort for the rest of her life, without interfering in state affairs. In return she didn't have to fear being beheaded, thrown in jail, being deported or ending her life in poverty.
It also meant that any children would have the right to a title and an income. Aknowledged illegitemate children of King Christian IV for instance got the name Gyldenløve = Golden Lion and an income.
It meant a lot to the woman's family as well. More often than not she would come from a noble family and with the king marrying her to his left hand, she got a status that was befitting of her station in life.
This practise died out as the Lutheran faith got more and more control and old ways vanished. The Catholic church was actually much more tolerant and women in particular had more rights, rights that were in many ways reduced after the Reformation.
It was to prevent illegitemate children to make a claim for the throne that the detail about "born within a legal marriage" was included in the Law of Succession.

There is a third reference to legal marriages, which didn't involve royals however. From early christian times it was normal among the people to marry unofficially, without an official religious ceremony. That later on became a part of Old Danish Law, which stated very clearly that if a woman held the keys to a house for three years and was aknowledged and treated by her peers as the mistress of that house, then she and the man who owned the house would be considered husband and wife, with the same legal rights as if they were married - even if their husband/wife was still alive or had not been declared dead.
The Lutheran church ended that practise as well.
- Holding the keys to a house was a direct symbol of her status and all wives/sisters/matrons and so on would wear the keys visibly as a sign of her status. Even among ordinary families. It was also the wife who had the key to the money chest and not the husband. A husband might drink the money away, but a sensible mother and wife could be relied upon.

principessa 01-01-2012 07:40 AM

Is it only for me or has someone else here the problem to load the website of the DRF?

rsfc149 01-01-2012 08:24 AM

No, I tried to open it too today, but it didn't work...

principessa 02-23-2012 03:28 PM

Is there somewhere in internet a printable family tree of the current Danish Royal family available?

Thank you!

Charlotte_Aster 02-23-2012 03:37 PM

:previous: here you go, principessa:
Danish monarchs family tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muhler 02-23-2012 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by principessa (Post 1374673)
Is there somewhere in internet a printable family tree of the current Danish Royal family available?

Thank you!


Oh, yes. There is a lot of material.

Paste this text into Google: kongefamilien stamtræ
And there you go. :smile:

I've got a lousy connection right now, so it would takes ages for me to dig something up, alas. :sad:

IloveCP 03-02-2012 04:23 PM

Does anyone know who made the tradition of announcing the name of a new member at the baptisim? I personally don't like it! ;)

Artemisia 03-02-2012 04:30 PM

:previous:
The tradition derives from the belief that if the child's name is spoken before the child is given the holy protection, the child could be taken by the Devil.

principessa 05-20-2012 09:23 AM

How close are Frederik and Joachim to their Laborde de Monpezat cousins?

FasterB 05-31-2012 04:49 AM

The cars of the Danish Royal Family
 
A new car has been delivered to the Danish Royal Household yesterday :flowers:

It´s an electrical car from https://danmark.betterplace.com

And here´s photos of the new "Krone 20" :flowers::flowers::flowers:
Meet the new "Krone 20" :crown: Electrical car on crown plates

Madame Royale 05-31-2012 05:09 AM

Much prefer the Maserati Quattroporte favoured by Joachim. The Milenese leather upholstery is divine and the elegance of the body is for me superior to none amongst luxury cars. Not at all surprising when the vehicle's appearance is the brainchild of Pininfarina.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises